Writing over at Reason, Ronald Bailey highlights the recent article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science which purports to rank the merit of climate scientists based on the usual metrics of articles published and articles cited. Then those scientists’ position on the anthropological global warming (AGW) hypothesis is noted. Lo and behold, skeptics tend to rank lower. The conclusion is that “good” scientists support the AGW hypothesis, while AGW skeptics tend to be more “mediocre” according to the article’s scientific rating scheme.

The “Climategate” e-mails demonstrated that the playing field is hardly level for climate skeptics, with establishment figures happy to “redefine what peer review is” in order to quash inconvenient or dissenting views. A consensus is inherently self-reinforcing, and it is hardly a surprise that those who challenge it are to some extent marginalized.